Holding

ONGC was justified in rejecting the bid as the tender required all bidders, including registered vendors, to upload a signed integrity pact, and the petitioner failed to comply.

Summary

The petitioner, AONE Exploration Private Ltd., challenged ONGC's rejection of its bid for chemical dosing pump services on the ground that it had not uploaded the required integrity pact. The petitioner argued that, as a registered vendor, it was exempt from re‑submitting the integrity pact, relying on ONGC's vendor registration policy and an email stating that approved documents need not be resubmitted. The Court examined the registration policy, noting that exemption is not automatic and that the tender expressly required all bidders to upload a signed integrity pact. It also considered that the petitioner had uploaded an incomplete pact, was asked to resubmit the full document, and only provided the complete pact after the bid had been rejected. The Court held that the tender condition was mandatory and that ONGC was justified in rejecting the bid, dismissing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether ONGC was justified in rejecting the petitioner's bid for failure to upload the integrity pact despite the petitioner being a registered vendor
Whether the exemption clause in ONGC's vendor registration policy shields a registered vendor from tender‑specific document requirements
Whether the petitioner's partial upload and subsequent resubmission of the integrity pact affect the validity of the rejection

Subjects

tenderintegrity pactvendor registrationONGCbid rejectionGeM portalprocurementcontract award

Judgment

C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Reserved On : 04/05/2026
Pronounced On : 08/05/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2739 of 2026

==================================================
AONE EXPLORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC) & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS ROMA I FIDELIS(3529) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W. MR KUNAN B NAIK(3210)
WITH MR. UTSAV SHUKLA, for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent,
whereby the bid of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground
that the integrity pact had not been uploaded along with the tender
documents. A consequential prayer challenging the award of the
contract to the respondent No.3 is also made.

2. The petitioner contends that the respondent had floated tenders
for hiring of services for chemical dozing pumps for a period of four
years at Mehsana. The petitioner contends that its bid made in
relation to this work was rejected since it had not submitted the
integrity pact as prescribed in the tender.

Page 1 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

3. It is the contention that the petitioner that it is a registered
vendor and that the registered vendors are not required to submit
an integrity pact along with their tender bid. It is the case of the
petitioner that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has entered into
several contracts wherein the integrity pact has already been
provided, apart from a common integrity pact, which had been
submitted at the time of seeking registration as a Vendor.

4. It is submitted that the integrity pact is basically a commitment
given in writing by the petitioner about its conduct with ONGC, and
this has no direct or indirect bearing in relation to the execution of
the contract which was relatable to hiring of services for chemical
dozing pumps for a period of four years at Mehsana or in relation to
the bid. It therefore submitted that rejection of the on the ground
that it had not uploaded the integrity pact is without any substance.

5. Learned Advocate General Shri Kamal Trivedi, appearing on
behalf of the respondent, contended that the requirement of
uploading the integrity pact was applicable to all bidders and that
no exception was made to registered vendors. Learned Senior
Counsel submitted that if a specific term of the tender had not been
complied with, the ONGC had no other option but to reject the bid.

6. In the light of these submissions, the only question to be
considered in this writ petition is as to whether ONGC was justified
in rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the integrity
pact was not uploaded on the GeM portal at the time of submission
of the bid.

Page 2 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

7. As noticed above, the principal contention of the petitioner is
that it was a registered vendor with the ONGC and therefore, there
was no requirement of uploading an integrity pact.

8. This argument is based on the fact that the registration policy
exempts registered vendors from uploading the integrity pact while
bidding for a contract. Learned Counsel places reliance on the email
dated 29.07.2025 issued by the ONGC Vendor Registration Team in
support of his contention. In this email, he places reliance on the
following term:

“Once registered, vendors will not be required to resubmit
documents already approved during the registration process
for future tenders, thereby simplifying and accelerating the
tendering process.”

9. He submits that since at the time of registration the petitioner
had, admittedly, furnished an integrity pact, which would apply to
all the future tenders, there was no necessity for it to resubmit the
said document.

10. In order to consider the submission, a reference to the terms
and conditions of Vendor Registration, a copy of which is produced
as Annexure-R4, would be necessary.

11. The preamble of the terms and conditions states as follows:

“ONGC use to purchase material and services of
approximate annual value of Rs. 30 Crore. In order to
streamline procurement of regular material and services,
ONGC intends to embark the process of Vendor Registration
for various categories of materials and services. Vendor
Registration will lead to faster processing of the tenders as
registered vendors will be exempted from submitting

Page 3 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

documents already approved during registration and
reducing evaluation time. Approved documents will remain
valid for all future ONGC tenders related to the same
materials and services, subject to validity & applicability of
such documents and information.”

12. A plain reading of these terms and conditions of the policy
would indicate that vendor registration is to ensure faster
processing of tenders and this is sought to be achieved by
exempting the registered vendors from submitting documents
which are already approved during registration.

13. Clause 8 of the Terms and Condiitons reads as follows:

“8. In future ONGC tenders, registered Vendors may be
exempted from evaluation of documents for those
categories for which they have obtained successful LoR. For
rest categories and for meeting additional tender conditions,
if any in the registered category, Vendors will be required to
submit requisite information / documents.”

14. This clause contemplates that in future ONGC tenders,
registered vendors may be exempted from evaluation of
documents for those categories for which they have obtained a
successful letter of registration.

15. It is on the basis of this preamble and the clause that an
argument is sought to be advanced that once there was a
registration as a vendor and an integrity pact was already furnished
to the ONGC, the ONGC in a future tender, such as the impugned
tender cannot insist upon the uploading of another integrity pact
and could not therefore have proceeded to reject the tender if such
an integrity pact had not been uploaded.

Page 4 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

16. A close reading of Clause 8 would indicate that there is no
automatic exemption of all documents. The use of the term "may
be exempted" from evaluation of documents would indicate that
the tender notifications that may be issued by the ONGC, in future,
may contain a clause which exempts the registered vendors from
submitting the normal documents for evaluation of the bid.

17. Learned Counsel however also places reliance on the email to
emphasize that ONGC has reiterated in this email that vendors
would not be required to resubmit documents which have already
been approved during the process of registration for future tenders.
It is contended that since there is a specific commitment given by
the ONGC at the time of registering the petitioner as a vendor that
it would not be required to resubmit documents already approved,
the rejection of the tender on the ground that the integrity pact was
not uploaded cannot be accepted, more so, when admittedly an
integrity pact had been furnished by the petitioner at the stage of
registration.

18. As already pointed out, the petitioner does not have an
assurance that the documents which have already been submitted
during the registration are automatically exempted. The terms and
conditions of the registration policy clearly indicate that the
possibility of exemption may be provided in future ONGC tenders,
thereby clearly signifying that the possibility of ONGC still insisting
on an integrity pact would be a term of the tender and that the
exemption was not absolute.

Page 5 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

19. The tender contained general terms and conditions and also a
buyer added bid specific terms and conditions which read as
follows:

“Buyer Organization specific Integrity Pact shall have to be
complied by all bidders. Bidders shall have to upload
scanned copy of signed Integrity pact as per Buyer
organizations policy along with bid.”

20. A reading of this clause makes it crystal clear that all bidders,
without any exception, are required to upload a scanned copy of
the signed integrity pact as per the requirement of the ONGC. The
use of the term “by all bidders” would obviously bring within its
ambit all the bidders including the registered vendors.

21. If the term of the registration policy merely stated that there
could be an exemption, thereby signifying that exemption is not
automatic, and the term of a future tender categorically stated that
an integrity pact should be uploaded by all bidders, it is obvious
that the petitioner was required to upload a scanned copy of the
signed integrity pact. In this case, since admittedly the petitioner
has not uploaded the scanned copy of a signed integrity pact, its
bid was defective.

22. There is yet another ground which justifies the decision of the
ONGC to reject the claim of the petitioner.

23. After the bid of the petitioner was submitted, by the letter dated
04.12.2025, ONGC informed the petitioner that it required
clarifications. The clarifications sought for were narrated in a
tabular column, which read as follows:

Page 6 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Commercial:

SI. Deficiencies noted in the bid Clarification/
No. Confirmation/Deficient
documents required
1 Bidder has submitted Scanned copy of Bidder is requested to
Integrity Pact duly signed by the all 3 resubmit the IP duly
directors, however the last 2 pages of signed on all the pages
the IP are missing. Only 4 out of 6 by the bid signatory and
pages uploaded. (Doc 2 witness signatures on
17636083831996.pdf) the last page.

24. As could be seen from the above, the petitioner had, in fact,
submitted a scanned copy of a signed integrity pact but only four
out of the six pages had been uploaded, and ONGC therefore
requested it to resubmit the integrity pact duly signed on all pages.

25. This clarification would clearly establish that the petitioner was
cognizant of the fact that there was no exemption in the uploading
of an integrity pact to a registered vendor and it had acquired to
this conditions and had voluntarily submitted the scanned copy of
the signed integrity pact, albeit incompletely. The petitioner, even
though, contends before this Court that it was exempt from
uploading the integrity pact, by uploading an incomplete integrity
pact, has established by its conduct that the condition imposed to
upload an signed integrity pact was mandatory and there was no
escape from this clause.

26. The petitioner, in response to this communication dated
04.12.2025, addressed a letter dated 11.12.2025 stating as follows:

Page 7 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

Commercial:

SI. Deficiencies noted in the bid Our reply
No. Clarification/Confirmatio
n/Deficient documents
1 Bidder has submitted Scanned copy of We hereby confirm and
Integrity Pact duly signed by the all 3 resubmit the complete
directors, however the last 2 pages of Integrity Pact with duly
the IP are missing. Only 4 out of 6 seal and signed.
pages uploaded. (Doc
17636083831996.pdf)

27. As could be seen from the reply of the petitioner, a stand was
taken that it was resubmitting the complete integrity pact duly
signed as per the terms of the tender. It is the specific case of
ONGC that only the covering letter was sent to them and the duly
signed integrity pact was not furnished to them along with the
covering letter. This stand of the ONGC is not disputed.

28. It is the case of the ONGC that after it was indicated on the GeM
portal that the petitioner's bid was rejected due to the non-
submission of the integrity pact on 29.01.2026, the petitioner
immediately addressed a communication dated 29.01.2026 and,
along with this communication, it furnished a duly signed integrity
pact. It is, therefore, the case of ONGC that the duly signed
integrity pact was submitted only after the bid had been rejected.

29. In fact, this position is admitted by the petitioner in the
communication dated 29.01.2026, the relevant portion of which
reads as follows:

Page 8 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

“We would like to clarify that the forwarding letter for
Integrity Pact was submitted, however, due to an
inadvertent technical error during document scanning, the
signed Integrity Pact file did not get attached and it was not
uploaded on the portal.

Our bid was disqualified on the grounds of non-submission
of the Integrity Pact, which was purely unintentional and not
due to non compliance.”

30. It is therefore clear that the petitioner admits that there was an
error on its part during document scanning and that the signed
integrity pact was not attached and consequently not uploaded to
the portal. It is also clear from this communication that the
assertion of the ONGC that only a covering letter dated 11.12.2025
was issued to them and that no signed integrity pact was furnished
to them despite a specific clarification sought for, is also not
disputed by the petitioner.

31. In our view, when the petitioner had admittedly uploaded the
integrity pact though partially, and on being informed of the
deficiency addressed a communication alleging that it was
resubmitting the document and ultimately submitted the signed
integrity pact only after the tender was rejected, the the argument
of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that the uploading of a
signed integrity pact was a superfluous or an unnecessary condition
or that the petitioner was exempted is unavailable.

32. To reiterate, if the petitioner all along understood that the
submission of a duly signed integrity pact was mandatory and
acted in terms of this belief, it cannot be permitted to argue that

Page 9 of 10
C/SCA/2739/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026

the integrity pact was already with the ONGC and that the same
ought to have been considered instead of rejecting the bid.

33. We are therefore of the view that there are no merits in the writ
petition, and it is accordingly dismissed.

(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)

(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
Mehul Desai
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: MEHULKUMAR BHIMABHAI DESAI(HCD0075), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2026 18:00:24

Page 10 of 10